Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday July 12, 2013 @12:01PM
from the pi-is-exactly-3 dept.

HonorPoncaCityDotCom writes "Alex Altman reports at Time Magazine that Google recently hosted a fundraiser for Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, one of the Senate's most conservative Republicans and a staunch opponent of EPA regulations. Inhofe authored a treatise called 'The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future,' thinks the Bible disproves global warming, and once denounced the 'arrogance' of scientists who suggest that 'we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate.' What prompted Google to host a fund raiser where attendees shelled out up to $2,500 for lunch with Inhofe? A data center that Google operates in Pryor, Oklahoma. 'Google runs a significant operation that provides around 100 jobs,' says Rusty Appleton, Inhofe's campaign manager. 'The Senator had an opportunity to tour the facilities in May of last year, and is committed to ensuring that Oklahoma remains a great place to do business.' A Google spokesperson says the company regularly hosts fundraisers for candidates of all stripes, even when Google disagrees with some of their policies — as it does with Inhofe on climate change. This explanation didn't wash with the activists outside Google's D.C. headquarters near K Street. "

Seriously, how is this news? A large company is schmoozing politicians. It's fine to think it's evil and corrupt and whatever. But news is generally something that you didn't already know. And the title is just trolling for True Believers who think that "Global Warming" is a single monolithic issue, with exactly one meaning and with exactly two sides ("Evangelist" and "Denier"), with no nuance or discussion possible. (As evidence, watch the flood of comments that will follow labeling me a "denier" because I used the words "nuance" and "discussion" in connection with Global Warming.)

Denier! Nuance is for pussies. Besides, the title says "Climate Change" (as in, we know it's changing), that's completely different from "Global Warming" (as in, we know it is changing, and we know it is becoming warmer). Since I have now proven you wrong, Slashtiquette allows me to make fun of your spelling, grammar, lack of paragraphs and, perhaps if cocky, make fun of the way you sleep wrapped in a Soviet flag.

Seriously, how is this news? A large company is schmoozing politicians. It's fine to think it's evil and corrupt and whatever. But news is generally something that you didn't already know.

That's a bit like saying, we know air planes crash, therefore the recent crash landing in San Francisco is not news.

I want to hear about events like these, and I think others should to, so that it gives Google the bad publicity it deserves. Because if it results in bad PR, it is less likely that companies will schmooze buffoons like Inhofe in the future.

We shouldn't set our expectations on the behaviour of corporations so low that we are completely indifferent when they behave badly. Otherwise, those who are not will have nothing for it.

But to call them out on it is "doing something". It taints their brand (like I explained in the part you didn't quote). Yes, it may only make a small difference, but it makes a difference nonetheless. A small contribution to a better world, if you will.

Perhaps we have a different take on what the news is. That a large company gives support to a politician in the US is not news. That Google with the public ethos it has supports a politician like Inhofe, on the other hand, is worthy of attention.

If I were to extend my perhaps not so stellar analogy: All planes land, but not all planes crash land.

There's very little nuance to be had with 'The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.' I appreciate that in all of science there are spectra and good bits and bad bits, but Inhofe leaves no room for disagreement on subtle details. If you believe what Inhofe says, you're a Denier with a capital 'D'.

He goes far beyond 'sceptic', which is something that all science enthusiasts should be--he's actively denying any and all science with his position. He's not your friend if you're the kind of person that reads and posts here.

Because we all know a massive global company like Google will never need to operate in a place like Oklahoma, right?

Sorry, being in business sometimes requires you work with people you really dont like. I dont see Google as supporting anything this idiot says, they're just stuck dealing with the idiot because the morons who live there keep voting for him. Clearly they like the guy, so what can you do? You cant just move everything because the current blow-hard in congress has some loonie ideas. Geez if

the company has a huge impact on our daily lives. This isn't some manufacturer no one ever heard off outside of small town USA. This company is intertwined into our daily lives and its in our interest to know about their ethics and political support/interference.

The person who wants to ignore reality and scientific evidence so they can personally profit, at the cost of our children (and possibly all future generations) having an environment suitable for life, is less evil than who exactly?

Buying congress makes sense. If they're outspokenly against you, when you buy them, they stop doing that. It'll be fun to see if this congressman does a 180 once Google's money is up his sock hole, and starts spouting Google's corporate values as his new platform.

A Google spokesperson says the company regularly hosts fundraisers for candidates of all stripes, even when Google disagrees with some of their policies â" as it does with Inhofe on climate change. This explanation didn't wash with the activists outside Google's D.C. headquarters near K Street.

Why would that explanation lack credibility? It sounds a lot more forthright than I would expect. Let's frame it a little differently and I think it will ring quite true:

"Google doesn't care about the policies of the politicians it supports, or whether those policies harm the nation, the planet, or the American people. Google will happily help channel money to any politician who can help us pay a little less taxes to maintain the system we benefit from, or who can influence laws so that we are not held responsible for our stalking or the government stalking we facilitate. Oligarchy rules!"

Basically if you're going to wait for a candidate that matches all your beliefs, you're never going to get it, even if you become a senator yourself. So you have to decide what priorities you think are most important. Google chose theirs, which are different than the activists, which annoys the activists.

And honestly I'm not sure they made the wrong priority decision. Whether they support climate change politicians or not, little is going to change in that area.

To be fair, the public can have one of two attitudes: it can say, "Well, google's priorities (or the priorities of any particular corporation) are different than mine, and I respect their right to their own opinion" which gives corporations the ability to act that way, or the public can say, "There are certain lines we don't want you to cross, and you'll face social disapproval (and potential revenue loss) when you do those things (whether those things are 'cynically support anti-global warming politicians'

Wars are won one battle at a time. You must choose how to win each battle if you ever hope to prevail in the war.

No they aren't. Wars are won by being smart enough to avoid them in the first place.

The ends do not justify the means. Buying those in power ensure they stay in power. By the time you eventually get enough money and power to actually undo all the damage they have done, you have either become them or so much damage has been done that it is nigh impossible to fix it.

When Google lobbies one right winger, it's news to Slashdot? Is anyone here aware that his views are shared with a significant portion of the population? This isn't David Duke's final term, this guy is mainstream.

He's probably wrong about Global Warming, I'll grant that. But I daydream about one day when the coin is flipped and Google's lobbying of a left winger (who's antipathy toward free enterprise and economic globalism lead to more human suffering around the world than that of a global warming denier) is shocking news.

Tort Reform was enacted in TX, medical costs did not drop a cent. In fact they continued upwards even though now a doctor can make you unable to ever work again and you will not be made whole financially.

Fun fact, items are priced for what the market will stand, if you lower the costs, the producer will pocket the difference as profit.

I don't think the issue here is right wing vs left wing, it is that he accepts myths over observable fact.

Really? Like the left wingers in siphonphores post "who's antipathy toward free enterprise and economic globalism lead to more human suffering around the world than that of a global warming denier"? They also accept myths over observable facts. Maybe it's just myths that you also happen to believe?

How is that any different from the 11 US Senators (9 Democrats, 1 Independent Democrat and 1 Republican) who signed an anti-GMO salmon letter [foodsafetynews.com] even though there is a wide scientific consensus built over 15 years that they are perfectly safe?

Politicians have all sorts of wacky ideas (or claim to have them due to having a wacky constituency, or because it actually helps them for an entirely different reason). I'm 100% sure that a number of the signatories of the anti-GMO salmon letter have no idea whether it's

The Economist ran a spread on this a few weeks ago:http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

What a politician railing against free enterprise sounds like:"We need to give people a living wage""Everyone has the right to free health care""Energy prices should reflect the true cost of fossil fuels"

And some less partisan ones:"Consumers need automotive dealers and shouldn't be able to buy direct from the manufacturer""Peo

Buying the good graces of a member of congress is a good investment. Rates have never been lower, and congress has never bee more corruptible. Even if you're not evil, the purchase of congressional support means that they tend to watch your back when they're screwing the little guy. It's just good business.

One thing I don't get about Inhofe and the other climate change deniers is this: why say the hoax is costing you millions when the hoax could just as easily be a business opportunity. I mean, real or not, it just means an opportunity for companies to cash in on environmental friendliness, sell people cures (whether they need them or not), etc. Even if you suppose Inhofe is receiving carnal pleasures from the petrochemical industry in exchange for his obedience, those same companies could turn around and make megabucks on carbon sequestration schemes, higher-priced fuel formulations that reduce emissions 1-2%, etc. People already swimming in cash are in a unique position to jump on opportunities of this sort. Hell, Exxon and GM ought to be able to get huge grants for "research" in making more carbon-neutral petro-fueled vehicles -- we're talking free money!

That's the problem with corrupt politicians these days... They miss the bigger money-grubbing picture.

Rates have never been lower, and congress has never bee more corruptible.

I'm not disagreeing with you -- mostly I agree with you -- but I think you skipped the most important thing. Government has never been more powerful, which means lobbying has never been so worthwhile -- indeed, necessary. Centralizing power and decision-making makes it obvious where wealthy parties should be making their investments: at the center. That's why of America's 10 wealthiest counties, six of them surround Washington DC.

Also -- I thought it odd that every single thing you presented in your second paragraph as a hypothetical is in fact already happening all around us (carbon sequestration and other Solyndra-type debacles, higher-priced fuel formulations, huge research grants, etc.).

Well that's just because, corruption is illegal, and congress took care of that. All those things that got them in trouble in the past have been fixed, they made them legal, you just have to follow the rules. (now it's not the CEO but a registered lobbyist and they don't come to Washington they just send a jet).

Inhofe sounds like a bit of a nut, but for me it's not about the science. I think the science of global warming is pretty well understood. But when it comes to political policy, the science of global warming is only ever used to promote thinly veiled marxism and anti-business, and even anti-human policies. If the global warming crowd ever got behind nuclear power, or ever admitted that technology is quickly erasing polution in our day, or ever even showed a small amount of restraint in the demand for all countries to cede large swaths sovereignty for the sake of cutting carbon emissions, I'd be a little less inclined to dismiss the rest of the agenda.

I guess you could say I'm a climate change believer and a marxism denier. The two don't have to go together, they just alway seem to in the current political climate. So even though Inhofe may be a cook, that doesn't mean that his policy prefferences won't be better than the alternative. And even though some other politician may be very bright, that doesn't mean that the marxist policies he/she promotes in the name of science/global warming wouldn't be very damaging. (And yes, I do mean more damaging than the pro-growth alternative.)

If you want to know that Global Warming is real, simply look at the main goal of every Geo-Engineering project running. "control weather and cool planet". Never mind the part where the metals they are using cause more harm than good and don't work like they think they do.. those people are idiots and truly believe that they are always right. Point is, if there is no Global Warming why are they dumping aluminum and barium particles in the air?

What google means is this republican gets a hard-on for big business and will help their bottom line so they're willing to put their supposed beliefs to the side because what good is a clean environment if they're sitting on an even bigger pile of cash.

'we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate.'

Well, I guess he completely forgot about Chlorofluorocarbons and how their creation and use by us created the Antarctic ozone hole?

So, for anyone who insists and can't fathom that our actions could possibly have an effect on something as large as the atmosphere, All they need to do is set their Wayback Machine to 1985, when this was discovered and reported in 1985.

To be a successful corporation in today's Amehrica, you cannot just spend all your time and money on a single party. You have to buy members of both parties in order to maintain your cozy relationship with the federal bureaucrats.

manufacturers of iOS devices, Android devices, Windows Phone devices, even Blackberries that still exist in the wild all do at least some of their manufacturing in China, where labor and environmental abuses are not just a daily occurrence but an accepted part of "doing business."

calling one side hypocritical is naïve, flame baiting, and ultimately pointless.

I don't see how it is evil to raise money for the campaign of a politician that helps you. I see how it *can* be evil, if the thing he/she is helping you to do is evil, or if the politician is evil.

I don't think being a climate change denier makes a person evil. It probably makes them stupid. But in all honesty, how many politicians are *not* stupid? What percentage of politicians believe in God? This makes 99+% of politicians in America stupid, or at liars pretending to be stupid, or both.

In a perfect world I would say that we should consider any kind of campaign contributions from anyone to be evil, but what's the alternative?

Force people to donate to all campaigns (i.e. public funding)?

Only allow donations from certain people (e.g. non evil people without agendas)?

If we are going to step outside the world we live in when we start labeling people evil, I am going to say that anyone who doesn't donate 100% of their profits to charity is evil, and therefore 99.9999% of Americans are evil, including google. Every dinner out, or new phone is a wasted opportunity to save a child or children in Africa. Every item of luxury that you enjoy is at the expense of someone else's necessities going unfulfilled.

We can either go through life constantly plagued with guilt even if we do our best, because it's never good enough, or we can just do something better than nothing and something less than everything, and try to enjoy ourselves before we die, and simply refuse to accept 100% complete responsibility for every bad thing that happens to someone else.

I am so disappointed that people are now talking about religion-blind bribes as though they're evil.

Let's say you're in a third world country, and a "your papers please" official hassles you over something that doesn't make sense, but then explains that your problem can be taken care of for a small fee.

Do you ask him what crazy religious beliefs he has, as a condition for paying the bribe? "Sure, this $20 might find itself into your pocket... if you can tell me a little about, oh, I don't know, say.. THET

I also realize that the fucking Sun has much more effect on the climate than we ever will.

True, if there were no Sun, the temperature would be roughly 2.7 Kelvin [nasa.gov]. Right now it's 86 degrees Fahrenheit where I live, or 303.15 Kelvins, so about a 11,228% increase for where I live, at the moment. So yeah, humans have come up with no feasible method of heating up our own entire planet by that amount without using nearby star undergoing nuclear fusion. If that's how you want to look at it.

Most people are fucking retarded when it comes to climate.

Again, totally true. For example, if someone were to think a valid point to make in a climate debate was that the Sun is affecting our climate more than humans. Problem is, the Sun has reached a relatively static heat output for the functional purpose of generating and sustaining life. That is, temperature hasn't changed rapidly enough within the lifespan of any species to fundamentally alter their environment in a way that the species could not adapt through the natural course of evolution. The last Ice Age was over a period of 100,000 years [wikipedia.org], plenty of time for most species to adapt. But now we're talking about global warming, on a scale that can be felt within someone's lifetime. Earth's ecosystems have been fine tuned to a temperature equilibrium that is changing faster than they can adapt. And the Sun, of all things, is cooling [skepticalscience.com], so we know (for a plethora of other reasons, too) it's man-made.

The "changing" effects of the sun are not included in any of the climate models currently mature enough to claim proof or predictive evidence of global warming. The amount of changes are less understood then you seem to think and the changing sun actually creates multiple effects on other systems like cloud formation that feed into the loop.

You make a bold claim there.

Evidence, please.

I'm sure ten or twenty-thousand scientists working in this area would be delighted to be enlightened by you.

Or, if your argument is basically "this whole climate thing is darn complicated" then... uh... yes, it is. That is why we have scientists working on it. Lots of them.

As for calling people idiots and retards, I'm reminded of pigs wallering in the mud.

omg, you really fell for that? Look, dumbo, you were the first one in this discussion using the word retard, so up yours.:-)

Ok here is the lowdown!Everyone has their good and bad parts about them. It is not productive to ignore and not work with people just because of their bad points. It is productive to work with these people because of their good points.

If you fully agree with everything the Republican or Democratic party says, then you are most likely a mindless shill who really should get out of politics because you are too stupid. You will tend to use most of your mental skills, trying to justify any inconsistencies in ideologies. Most likely you are not running for office, and you do not have anything at stake for not being Conservative or Liberal enough.

If you are going to protest google, protest the policy/ideology/action that google does that you do not like. Not the fact they worked with a politician that you wouldn't vote for, because they liked something unrelated to the policy you're fighting against.

Seriously, politics is just like that. There will likely never be a candidate who's view you all agree with. Most candidates will likely have at least one view you strongly disagree with. Even if there were one, he go to the capital and form a coalition/caucus/committee with other politicians you don't like, if he's going to accomplish anything.

Politics is about compromise. Getting anything done requires helping people you despise accomplish goals that aren't so bad, in order for people who aren't so bad to accomplish goals that you approve of. Don't like that? Stay out of the sausage factory.

Between his campaign and the main super PAC supporting him, Restore Our Future, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has received $9.6 million in contributions from the oil and gas industry. In contrast, President Obama has received about five percent of that total, or just under $500,000 from oil and gas donors

I consider all climate change data, even the unpopular data showing the earth has been cooling the past decade even though carbon emissions are at the highest ever!

LOLZ

The top 10 warmest years on record are all within the last 15 years, with all but 1 of those happening in the last 10 years. It's true we've had an extended La Niña for a few years (except 2010, the hottest year ever recorded) that caused some leveling off (not cooling), but it's leveling off at a very high temperature historically and shows signs of shooting back up to correct when the La Niña ends. So please be careful about what "data" you "consider" and that you're not suffering from confirm

If you're going to consider all climate change data then you need to include ocean temperatures too (and geosphere temperature changes although they're small enough to be ignored at the first order) because it's all part of a continuum and rather than temperatures in any one part of the whole it makes more sense to consider the total energy captured in the system. If you look at it that way the warming continues apace with no noticeable slow down. Over 90% of the energy being captured by the increase in gr

Most of the GOP claims those values, but I notice none of them oppose the TSA, NSA, war on drugs, or restrictions on abortions. None seem to support free trade when it comes to people who can't afford their prescriptions wanting to buy from Canada.

You do realize that when you go into the kitchen to get a beer, you change either the rotation rate of the Earth, or its polar motion, or (more likely) both?

The question is not whether or not it happens, the question is whether it is big enough to be detected observationally. Today, with GPS and VLBI, pretty small changes can be detected (although, I will grant, not you going into the kitchen). (Yet.)

I did calculate once the rotational effect of everyone going back and forth to work in LA; maybe it's time t